In the Republic of Moldova, the President is suspended from office not for a particular period of time, but for a particular cause and this is something exclusive. The President was suspended for four times not for physical or another impossibility, but for the refusal to sign acts and these things deserve special attention, Igor Boțan, standing expert of IPN’s project, stated in the public debate “Suspension of President: legality, institutional blockage, political confrontation” that was staged by IPN News Agency and Radio Moldova.
The expert reminded that a year ago the Government requested the Constitutional Court to interpret norms of the Constitution so as to overcome an institutional blockage, when the President refused to sign a particular decree. After that the President was suspended repeatedly and not for a physical or another impossibility, as the Constitution provides, but for refusal. The problem resides in Article 91 of the Supreme Law, which envisions the suspension and speaks about the President’s temporary inability to perform his duties.
“From my viewpoint, the Constitutional Court’s interpretation of Article 91 substitutes the term “impossibility” with “unwillingness” and also the category “time” with “cause”. We have a paradoxical situation. We are told that he cannot fulfil his duties for a particular cause and the notion of “time” is substituted with “cause”,” stated Igor Boţan.
He noted that in international practice the term “impossibility of the President” is explained as being physical or moral in character. The physical impossibility implies that the President is sick or disappeared, for example. The moral impossibility can be explained based on the case of Belgium, were the suspension occurred for religious reasons as a Catholic king could not sign a decree on the right to abortion. “In the case of the Republic of Moldova, it is something else. These are things that do not form part of international experiences. It is a purely Moldovan practice,” he explained.
According to Igor Boţan, if the President refuses to sign, the Constitutional Court says this is in temporary impossibility, but the temporary impossibility stipulated in the Constitution is not equal to the periodical or frequent refusal of the President. The Constitutional Court’s solution is related to political opportunity. “Dear lawmakers, there is the procedure for dismissing the President. You have the solution if he does not want to sign and he indeed does not want. You have the solution in the Constitution. Why do you look for alternative, soft and untraditional solutions?” asked the expert.
Igor Boţan noted that Parliament, when the President violates the Constitution, can initiate the suspension and dismissal procedure and he does not understand why the CC does not insist on this. In the case of the President, the Constitutional Court insists that the President is obliged, but does not insist that Parliament is also obliged. “I think it is a political competition between two political camps. If the notions are substituted, the temporary impossibility is not equal to the periodical or frequent refusal. The Constitution provides the solution: the suspension and dismissal procedure,” he stated.
The debate “Suspension of President: legality, institutional blockage, political confrontation” forms part of the series of debates held by IPN News Agency and Radio Moldova as part of the project “Developing political culture by public debates” that is supported by the Hanns Seidel Foundation of Germany.
